OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...

OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...

Short answer -- it depends.

In EF-M: Looks like yes. Canon appears to be putting out faster primes without IS if this rumor is true: 15mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.8 are coming, and there already is a 22mm f/2.

In EF-S: Hell no. No EF-S primes for you unless the word pancake or macro is involved, and those will be f/2.8. If you want a fast prime here, hope an EF lens X 1.6 works for you, or get an EF-S prime from another company.

In EF: Depends on your FL. Review the chart. Canon has sort of staked out what max aperture it wants to offer and appears to be sticking to it. Consider: the 24/28/35 IS refreshes from a couple years ago retained their max aperture. So if you want f/2 or faster in a non-L prime, yes, you have it with the 28 (1. / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100 lenses.

OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...

Short answer -- it depends.

In EF-M: Looks like yes. Canon appears to be putting out faster primes without IS if this rumor is true: 15mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.8 are coming, and there already is a 22mm f/2.

In EF-S: Hell no. No EF-S primes for you unless the word pancake or macro is involved, and those will be f/2.8. If you want a fast prime here, hope an EF lens X 1.6 works for you, or get an EF-S prime from another company.

In EF: Depends on your FL. Review the chart. Canon has sort of staked out what max aperture it wants to offer and appears to be sticking to it. Consider: the 24/28/35 IS refreshes from a couple years ago retained their max aperture. So if you want f/2 or faster in a non-L prime, yes, you have it with the 28 (1. / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100 lenses.

- A

...which still leaves us with nothing wider than normal (faster than f/2. on crop. Given the number of crop DSLRs compared to EOS Ms that are out there, it would seem to be at least an equal market. If they're putting in that effort for the M, I'd think it would be relatively easy to repackage as EF-S, given the same size sensors...

Pondering this recently, although I feel that more EF-M specific glass is a good thing, personally beyond my current 22mm and 18-55mm I'm not seeing me add anything more other than perhaps the 11-22mm. What I really want are more midrange primes to compliment my lovely L zooms - I've got the 35mm IS, would like to extend to a trinity of a 50mm IS and 85mm IS and potentially replace my 16-35mm L with a wider prime 15/14mm perhaps as I hardly ever use my 16-35 at anything but 16mm. All of which, if as compact as my 35mm IS could be put to good use on my EOS-M kit - so for me, yes please, more EF-M primes, but also more EF IS primes too !

OK, I'll rephrase: How about now that Sigma is putting out f/1.8 and f/2 zooms, Canon stops messing around with these f/2.8 primes? I understand keeping f/1.4 the realm of the L lenses, but f/2 would be nice...

Short answer -- it depends.

In EF-M: Looks like yes. Canon appears to be putting out faster primes without IS if this rumor is true: 15mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.8 are coming, and there already is a 22mm f/2.

In EF-S: Hell no. No EF-S primes for you unless the word pancake or macro is involved, and those will be f/2.8. If you want a fast prime here, hope an EF lens X 1.6 works for you, or get an EF-S prime from another company.

In EF: Depends on your FL. Review the chart. Canon has sort of staked out what max aperture it wants to offer and appears to be sticking to it. Consider: the 24/28/35 IS refreshes from a couple years ago retained their max aperture. So if you want f/2 or faster in a non-L prime, yes, you have it with the 28 (1. / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100 lenses.

- A

...which still leaves us with nothing wider than normal (faster than f/2. on crop. Given the number of crop DSLRs compared to EOS Ms that are out there, it would seem to be at least an equal market. If they're putting in that effort for the M, I'd think it would be relatively easy to repackage as EF-S, given the same size sensors...

Canon wants crop shooters to "upgrade" to FF, so they starve the crop prime market. They don't appear to have the same goal with mirrorless. That's good for their fledgling mirrorless system users, not so good for SLR crop shooters. The marketing department rules.

A 15mm EF-M = a 24mm prime in FF. Lovely, but who the hell was asking for this?

EOS-M has an ultrawide zoom and an adjacent wide prime with the 22mm f/2. Surely a native sized portrait lens or macro lens was a bigger need for the platform, right?

And why does EOS-M go with faster max aperture small primes without IS, while EF gets slower max aperture primes with IS? Everything about this seems inconsistent.

- A

You keep talking about wanting a portrait lens for the M - do you really intend to do serious portraiture with the M? Do you think a lot of other people would? I'm genuinely curious; it seems like a purpose for which the size advantage of the M wouldn't help at all. Why not use any Canon DSLR instead?

I also want a compact, light, moderate tele lens in EF-M mount. For "unserious" quick portraits on the fly (not in studio), for street use, for concerts/events [where DSLRs are either "forbidden" or simply too bulky], for urbexing when I think it is not advisable to take really expensive cameras and lenses along to a specific location] and for general walk-around tele use.

Beyond 55mm focal length @ f/5.6 on the EF-M kit lens the only currently available native EF-M lens is the EF-M 55-200/4.5-6.3. I'd like a EF-M short tele prime - around 85mm - a few stops faster [anything between f/2.0 and f/2.8], smaller size and with IS. Adapted EF 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 is already a bit on the large side on an M and they have no IS.

I also want a compact, light, moderate tele lens in EF-M mount. For "unserious" quick portraits on the fly (not in studio), for street use, for concerts/events [where DSLRs are either "forbidden" or simply too bulky], for urbexing when I think it is not advisable to take really expensive cameras and lenses along to a specific location] and for general walk-around tele use.

Beyond 55mm focal length @ f/5.6 on the EF-M kit lens the only currently available native EF-M lens is the EF-M 55-200/4.5-6.3. I'd like a EF-M short tele prime - around 85mm - a few stops faster [anything between f/2.0 and f/2.8], smaller size and with IS. Adapted EF 85/1.8 or 100/2.0 is already a bit on the large side on an M and they have no IS.

The walkaround I get... but especially for concerts and events, is the autofocus on the M (even M3) really good enough for the typical lighting at those? And would an SL1 not work better (and probably even get past a "no SLR" rule)? I'd even rather have the SL1 (and do!) for the walkaround purpose.

In fairness, I've never really understood the appeal of the M in the first place, but the given reasons for the "portrait" prime just underscore its limitations. The WA/ UWA primes make more sense to me.

I don't cover Taylor Swift or Rolling Stones concerts. I'm usually not accredited. DSLRs - even an SL1 with kitzoom - are considered "professional gear" by security. EOS-M plus small lens look inconspicuos. However, even a compact tele like EF 100/2.0 with adapter looks way "too professional" - i usually put it into an extra coat pocket or small bag. I need some reach, because i am not next to the stage, but in the audience. I need faster than f/5.6 because light is always low. EOS M (1) one-shot AF is good enough with careful timing to get me some keepers. Bands/acts usually like the images. Had no complaints so far because of my candid bootleg captures. Most of the time we have a nice exchange of emails, sometimes I get a free ticket to a show, sometomes they use some of my images on their homepage.

So, i'd like to get an EOS-M4 (or even better a very compact FF MILC) with EVF and a compact, native 80/2.0 or f/2.8 short tele to go with it. I have no interest in macro (lenses) or more wide-angle primes. 22/2 is all i need (plus sometimes the 11-22) - the 22/2 is good enough, small enough and inconspicuous enough to not be considere "professional gear" by even the most ignorant security staff.

I don't cover Taylor Swift or Rolling Stones concerts. I'm usually not accredited. DSLRs - even an SL1 with kitzoom - are considered "professional gear" by security. EOS-M plus small lens look inconspicuos. However, even a compact tele like EF 100/2.0 with adapter looks way "too professional" - i usually put it into an extra coat pocket or small bag. I need some reach, because i am not next to the stage, but in the audience. I need faster than f/5.6 because light is always low. EOS M (1) one-shot AF is good enough with careful timing to get me some keepers. Bands/acts usually like the images. Had no complaints so far because of my candid bootleg captures. Most of the time we have a nice exchange of emails, sometimes I get a free ticket to a show, sometomes they use some of my images on their homepage.

So, i'd like to get an EOS-M4 (or even better a very compact FF MILC) with EVF and a compact, native 80/2.0 or f/2.8 short tele to go with it. I have no interest in macro (lenses) or more wide-angle primes. 22/2 is all i need (plus sometimes the 11-22) - the 22/2 is good enough, small enough and inconspicuous enough to not be considere "professional gear" by even the most ignorant security staff.

I go to a fair number of shows here in southern California. Even in the smaller venues, detachable lens rigs are a certain way to have to schlep back to your car and put your rig away. You might be able to sneak in a Nikon 1 mirrorless rig, but no bigger. To security, they're trained to see a lens bolted on a camera and say "No."

I think this is the rare case where the non-heavily-protruding fixed lens camera is the only play. Larger sensored fixed lens rigs -- Fuji X100, Ricoh GR, Nikon Coolpix A, etc. -- would sneak right past security as a point and shoot to them.

This is also the rare case where a phone lens module style camera like the Sony Q or DXO One might make sense. I still think they are poor products, but hey -- for concerts, they'd work.

Where i live, i could get into any venue so far with EF-M plus kit lens mounted. And a very compact EF-M 80/2.4 IS STM would also work. They typically cannot spot the lens is removable. But they know a DSLR. Advantage of EOS-M (especially M, M2 and M10) or a Sony A6000 or a Fuji XE2 etc. is the rangefinder/p&s style form factor without central "pseudo prism hump" on top. Fuji XT-1 or Sony A7 already are on the large side and look too much like a DSLR with that central (EVF) hump. That's one of the reasons why I'd prefer an EOS M4 in the Sony A6000 form factor - and with EF-M mount, of course. To mount a nice supercompact EF-M short tele lens with IS onto ...

I don't cover Taylor Swift or Rolling Stones concerts. I'm usually not accredited. DSLRs - even an SL1 with kitzoom - are considered "professional gear" by security. EOS-M plus small lens look inconspicuos. However, even a compact tele like EF 100/2.0 with adapter looks way "too professional" - i usually put it into an extra coat pocket or small bag. I need some reach, because i am not next to the stage, but in the audience. I need faster than f/5.6 because light is always low. EOS M (1) one-shot AF is good enough with careful timing to get me some keepers. Bands/acts usually like the images. Had no complaints so far because of my candid bootleg captures. Most of the time we have a nice exchange of emails, sometimes I get a free ticket to a show, sometomes they use some of my images on their homepage.

So, i'd like to get an EOS-M4 (or even better a very compact FF MILC) with EVF and a compact, native 80/2.0 or f/2.8 short tele to go with it. I have no interest in macro (lenses) or more wide-angle primes. 22/2 is all i need (plus sometimes the 11-22) - the 22/2 is good enough, small enough and inconspicuous enough to not be considere "professional gear" by even the most ignorant security staff.

What does security think of, say, the SX60? It has a protruding lens...